| 1:45 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Looks like I should have left well enough alone after the last update. I added the suggested text to my site and now we dropped about 8 places. <sigh> back to the drawing board.
| 2:11 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Mine are not back either... and I'm not even going to bother looking for the reasons for it. I've been through all that, and the sites are clean.
One straw to cling to - when the penalty was applied it was right at the end of the dance, not at the start. Now where is that flying pig?
| 2:18 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This looks like a really good update for me. Changing title tags to keyword phrases seems to have payed off :)
Does anyone know what the difference between w2 and w3 is? Is w2 without spam filters or something?
| 2:30 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
rpking: Just had a good look around your site and I'm impressed. You have oodles of content in there - I'm really shocked you have a 0 pagerank :(
| 2:33 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
everyone keep your fingers crossed...we've jumped from 78th to 15th if this update holds..and that's on a very competitive keyword phrase.
nutsandbolts...keep your chin up. We had(have) greyed out PR last month, but hopefully have made it back. There IS hope. Good luck, everyone.
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 2:45 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I notice the update must have happened quite a while ago, because Ive since added more info to the site.
I think its been up for 2 weeks so Google must take its time shifting the results to the front end ;)
not sure how well im gonna fare, not got enough history....but "biology"- the theme of the site is up from about 110 to 60 :) :)
nice one google, just try keeping up with me from now on :)
| 2:55 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
i checked his page too and it looks super clean to me and very well desinged. rpking, was it always like this or you removed somethigns after pr 0? He msut have used something, idont see other reason why would they pr 0 this site.
he has links to some other site on every page but this site isnt penalized. so it isnt linking to "bad neighbourhood".
Could it be this is though as "artificial linking"? Nah, it can not be, this would be TOTALY unfair. I am really interested what was the reason in this case.
| 3:21 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I can sure see a lifting of a spam filter, lots of junk floated up to the top.
<url snip>(Lets try and stay away from specific examples please).
(edited by: WebGuerrilla at 3:27 pm (utc) on Feb. 20, 2002)
Sorry didn't know its not OK to point out glaring holes in the algo (SERPS filled with the same site for pages long...)
(edited by: andrey_sea at 3:49 pm (utc) on Feb. 20, 2002)
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 3:30 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Justt some notes about the update, dont know if this is common knowledge
1. New SERP's appeared on www2 today
2. www2 SERP's phasing in and out of www
3. Even more updated cache found on www.3
4. I think Google must be applying some parameters to account for the differences between www2 and www3 before they put it into www
Any thoughts? :)
....2 minutes later ...just to mess with my mind, www3 is now using www results with the most updated cache.
Should I keep blurting this out or keep it to myself ? :)
| 3:36 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
When will changes in PR be shown, if any?
| 3:43 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I haven't changed a thing... I don't believe that I have done anything wrong, so I never wanted to change anything to satisfy the Google God.
However, I had hoped that it was just a bug with Google. Things may have to change soon....
| 3:49 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
here is one thing i noticed on my site,maybe we can draw some conclusion form this:
everything i talk is in www2.
1.the site that was duplicate is now showing only one page which is like expected since i removed all other pages. I dont know if it is pr 0 , icant isnatll toolbar on schoo lcomputer. I will ask someone to check it for me.
Waht is particualry suspicious here is that now this page is very simmilar if not the same as many pages that are in top 50 for particular term. So it is the same and it is still pr 0 whcih makes me think that pr 0 was not lifted whcih can mean that update is not finished, they do it manually or pr 0 was set for sometime period for this site NO matter what i do.They have crawled this pageand updated the listing since it is not only one page in index (all other give 404).Except pr 0 is still there i think (will check with someone and follow up here)
2.many pages that are showing in index show ONLY URL and no description- like it was when google crawled our site in the beggining. Maybe they relesaed penalty and in next index they will add desription. Will wait and see.
3. hm, link:mydomain.com command shows no results. it looks it is pr 0 after all.
But this gives me some hoep. will wait to next update.Another long month ahead of us.
Except something drastic changes in this months update(maybethey didnt come to my sites calculations)
| 3:57 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
oh god... I love this time of month
for its primary keyword combo my main site is
2nd on www
3rd on www2
1st on www3
and for some reason the home page is listed as 1k bigger by www2
unfortunatly my boss has found out about www2 and www3 and always wants me to explain why there are specific differences on each one
I have started to tell him that its a 'black art' and no one really knows
which isn't really that far from the truth ;)
| 4:06 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I guess seeing as GoogleBot hasn't *found* my site, it cannot add it into the update huh?
| 4:15 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
our sites have not recovered from PR0 in this update yet. We still have hopes as Googleguy said we will be okay!.
Can anyone shout who recovered their PR from PR0?
| 4:16 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
i see some changes to descriptions.I think it is smart to wait to end of update before becoming sad. How long is the normal update? Few days?
I'm not normally a praying man, but if you're up there - please save me Superman!
| 6:32 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I believe GoogleGuy said he would take a look at your site if you would provide a URL in your profile. As I recall, you declined to do so.
| 6:37 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yes, and I will slap it in once this update is complete.
| 6:40 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>its not OK to point out glaring holes
Andrey, just report it to Google through their channels. It's impossible for us to determine what is "shopping the competition", what is actual spam, what is just "misunderstood but ok", and "glaring holes" in the algo. That protects you as the other members. Thanks for understanding.
Deadlock, could it be as simple as the update wave through the various data centers? Currently, #2 has the football here.
| 6:42 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
update: all sites that had links to eaxhother still pr 0. so i gues it is next update then.
| 8:32 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
No luck for my sites - Still have the PR0 Disease. What in the world do we have to do to get this fixed??? Tis quit nauseating :(
| 8:34 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
przero2: if you're referring to the url listed in your profile you do not have a PR0. It's not high but it's not zero.
| 9:07 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
przero2 - One site has escaped from its PR0 penalty, still have one penalised.
The site that escaped didn't return to its former glory, but at leat its on the way.
Generally happy, got some good inbound links showing for other sites, which has given me some pluses. Some stayed stable very few went down.
Offerings to the Google Gods seem to have worked. :)
| 9:17 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
We are still suffering from pagerank zero also. This is the second month of this now. We removed our image mapped advertising of our other sites in late Dec 2001 as that is what we thought was triggering the problems because the advertisement was on every page of our site causing the cross-linking filters to hit. Looks like another long month. :(
| 9:49 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing some pretty spammy stuffing rising to the surface for the terms I'm searching. I hope these will be filtered out and not just because they rank above me. ;) Some things like 3-4 uses of the <title> tag and tons of kw stuffing. nasty...
| 10:02 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Jill mentioned "przero2: if you're referring to the url listed in your profile you do not have a PR0. It's not high but it's not zero."
Jill, the site in the profile never had PR0. I had 2 other sites that got hit with PR0 which were confirmed by GoogleGuy that they were OK. But they still have PR0 in this update. Actually I just noticed that one site had its home page PR grayed out with all other pages having PR0. And the other site has all its pages including home page retaining its PR0.
Here is hoping that this update is not finished yet although that hope is fading away fast!. Looks like one more long month of wait and then who would know what will happen!!
| 10:05 pm on Feb 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
what are www1, www2, and www3?
Not sure what we are talking about here?
Algorithm changes causing different page ranks? But what does ww1, ww2, www3 mean?
| 9:09 am on Feb 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Continued in February Update Part 2 [webmasterworld.com], including discussion of www, www2 and www3.
| This 58 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 58 ( 1  ) |